From Rams media release

[Blue and Gold]

 

[Amitar]

Good info, nice post.

 

[jdhommert]

Yep, they had a very overlooked defense just due to how incredible that offense was.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Thye scored 8 defensive TDs, too, I think. And. for those who think they defended the run only because they go big leads, their yards allowed per carry was better in 2nd half and allowed fewer yards in 2nd half (let's call it less than 50% of the 74.3) . . don't have exact figure, but one of reason they were able to continue to blow people out is they couldn't run versus our nickle or dime and in first half they could run versus the base.

The 1999 Rams defense was on of best in team history (and that is saying something) and one of the better Super Bowl defenses, just check the numbers, who else led NFL in stopping run AND led NFL in sacking QB in same season?

 

[DR RAM]

Thye scored 8 defensive TDs, too, I think. And. for those who think they defended the run only because they go big leads, their yards allowed per carry was better in 2nd half and allowed fewer yards in 2nd half (let's call it less than 50% of the 74.3) . . don't have exact figure, but one of reason they were able to continue to blow people out is they couldn't run versus our nickle or dime and in first half they could run versus the base.

The 1999 Rams defense was on of best in team history (and that is saying something) and one of the better Super Bowl defenses, just check the numbers, who else led NFL in stopping run AND led NFL in sacking QB in same season?

What I remembered, is that they always seemed to make big plays when they needed to. The stats tell a little bit of a different story. That was a good defense, very good, in fact.

 

[Robocop]

Yep, they had a very overlooked defense just due to how incredible that offense was.

I watched the Super Bowl replay of it with I believe Rich Eisen sitting down with Warner watching the game and Warner was giving high praise to the defense. After all which side of the ball was the game finally decided on

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

The defense had an advantage though. They didn't have to guess if plays were run or pass very often. The GSOT got a lead so quickly that teams were forced to stick to the pass to play catch up early on in most games. So the opponents running game was almost non existent, leading to the Rams having the best run D in football. They could just tee off against the pass every play. It is easier when you know what is coming.

 

[Blue and Gold]

The defense had an advantage though. They didn't have to guess if plays were run or pass very often. The GSOT got a lead so quickly that teams were forced to stick to the pass to play catch up early on in most games. So the opponents running game was almost non existent, leading to the Rams having the best run D in football. They could just tee off against the pass every play. It is easier when you know what is coming.

That's what I was mentioning, what you are saying is conventional wisdom, but the numbers are not that skewed.

Teams ran an average of 11 times against Rams in first half of games, 10 in the second. In the first half, teams threw an average of 19 passes (including plays that led to sacks) and 22 passes against us in 2nd halves. Not that big a difference. He had 26 sacks in first halves of games and 31 in second halves. The sack percentage for the first half was 8.8% and it was 8.7% the second half. So, there was not the conventional wisdom going on.

We did get more picks in 2nd have, first have we picked off an average of 4.0% and in 2nd half 5.5%.

So, if Rams would have teed off on every play, they would not have stopped the run at 3.0 yards a carry in 2nd half (which they did). In first half with those 11 carries Rams gave up 4.0 yards. If a pass rush tees off they give up screens, draws, plays that giet chunck yardage and it just didnt happed with the 1999 Rams in second half, they sacked QB at same rate, played the run better, and gave up fewer yards per pass (6.3 to 6.7)

So, I respectfully disagree, opponents running games were not "almost non-existant" they ran 1 less carry, on average, in the 2nd half. It;s just that Rams stuffed the run amazingly in 2nd halves. So, it wasn't the lack of carries by teams when we had a big lead, it's that they couldn't run. Rams may have known passes were coming, but on 3 extra passes and one less run is not much of a tendency.

Again, I get the conventional wisdon. Numbers don't bear it out.

 

[Thordaddy]

They were a savvy veteran defense with some young and talented people at key positions,but the next year they went over the hill in a hurry

 

[Noregar]

That 1999 team was indeed a Fun TEAM to WATCH!!! Very Good on both sides of the ball.

It was also a unique situation with Bunting and Giunta being the co-defensive coordinators. I recall teams attempting the old strategy of running the ball to try to keep the Rams offense off the field, of course that never really worked out well.

Strangely the 2000 defense was very bad with much of the same personnel. Many factors were involved in that sharp decline but a big part of it was the head coaching change that precipitated the end of the Guinta-Bunting experiment and the aging out of key vets like Farr, Agnew, Lyght, and Lyle plus a disgruntled Kevin Carter (contract issues).

 

[Noregar]

Double Post

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

That's what I was mentioning, what you are saying is conventional wisdom, but the numbers are not that skewed.

Teams ran an average of 11 times against Rams in first half of games, 10 in the second. In the first half, teams threw an average of 19 passes (including plays that led to sacks) and 22 passes against us in 2nd halves. Not that big a difference. He had 26 sacks in first halves of games and 31 in second halves. The sack percentage for the first half was 8.8% and it was 8.7% the second half. So, there was not the conventional wisdom going on.

We did get more picks in 2nd have, first have we picked off an average of 4.0% and in 2nd half 5.5%.

So, if Rams would have teed off on every play, they would not have stopped the run at 3.0 yards a carry in 2nd half (which they did). In first half with those 11 carries Rams gave up 4.0 yards. If a pass rush tees off they give up screens, draws, plays that giet chunck yardage and it just didnt happed with the 1999 Rams in second half, they sacked QB at same rate, played the run better, and gave up fewer yards per pass (6.3 to 6.7)

So, I respectfully disagree, opponents running games were not "almost non-existant" they ran 1 less carry, on average, in the 2nd half. It;s just that Rams stuffed the run amazingly in 2nd halves. So, it wasn't the lack of carries by teams when we had a big lead, it's that they couldn't run. Rams may have known passes were coming, but on 3 extra passes and one less run is not much of a tendency.

Again, I get the conventional wisdon. Numbers don't bear it out.

View attachment 3593

The Rams scored fast. They got leads on the first drive. They would be up by two touchdowns before the first quarter. Every team knew going in that a ground and pound attack would not be enough, unless they had a great defense. Tampa and Tennessee kept the scores down and the Rams had a lot of trouble stopping Tennessees rushing attack in the Superbowl. Their scoring prowess greatly attributed to their defensive prowess.

 

[Blue and Gold]

The Rams scored fast. They got leads on the first drive. They would be up by two touchdowns before the first quarter. Every team knew going in that a ground and pound attack would not be enough, unless they had a great defense. Tampa and Tennessee kept the scores down and the Rams had a lot of trouble stopping Tennessees rushing attack in the Superbowl. Their scoring prowess greatly attributed to their defensive prowess.

Well, I respecfully disagree. Number dont bear it out

 

[tklongball]

Loved that 1999 team. After being a fan since I was 5 years old (1977), it was amazing to see the Rams dominate, and ultimately win a Superbowl. Especially after a few close calls, and a lot of lean years.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Dang, that defense statistisically smashed our current defense. We would have smashed the Eagles and Cowboys with good defense those games.

 

[Boffo97]

This is something I've been vociferously disagreed with on before... but I've always wondered how much of that defense looking good was them and how much was the offense making them look really good by letting them play completely one dimensionally due to big leads, especially given the complete meltdown the next year.